Self defence

[davereid]

The police have recently been asking for Tasers, and Firearms, quite rightly pointing out that they have the right to go home to their families every night, and that they face an increasing risk of assault and even being killed than they faced 20 years ago.

With 29 Policemen killed in the last 120 years they have a point.

But on Thursday, two Dairy owners were threatened by a man with a knife. They defended themselves, and threw him out, using their own, larger knife.

Entirely justifiable, even laudable given the number of dairy owners, taxi drivers, and normal kiwis going about their lawful business, who are attacked by thugs on a daily basis.



Whats the outcome ?

Detective Sergeant John Taylor advises us that the Dairy Owner may be in trouble himself !

Is it only policemen then, armed with stab proof vests, pepper spray, tasers, radios, and immediate backup who are entitled to go home to their families each night ?

[-df-]

Yeah, the whole thing is a joke if you ask me.

If someone tries to attack you, as far as I'm concerned you have every right to do as much as you deem necessary to stop them...if the attacker is injured, killed, well...guess that person should not have tried to attack you in the first place!!

"You call that a knife?!?!" lol

[-df-]

double post

[marty]

I'm sure the dairy owner was using the knife to cut some tomatoes up, and just happened to have it in his hand when the bad guy turned up. In that case, it's a simple self defence using an opportunistic defence weapon.

[bogan]

I think the vast majority would agree that self defense in such situations is fine, but where to draw the line between defense and offense. If a guy comes in brandishing a pocket knife, and gets stabbed in the back trying to run from the shop owners samurai sword or something, that probably counts as offense, though if mr pocket knife tries to stab mr samurai and looses a few fingers in the process then thats fine by me :yes:

[madbikeboy]

I like the eminant domain law in the US. In laymans terms, if someone breaks into your house, you can shoot them. If the body drops dead outside the front door, shoot them again, then drag the body into the house.

Under the criminal offenses act, if someone breaks into your house here in NZ, you can be charged with rudeness if you don't offer them a nice snack and a drink as well as all your possessions...

[jim.cox]

The police have recently been asking for Tasers, and Firearms, quite rightly pointing out that they have the right to go home to their families every night, and that they face an increasing risk of assault and even being killed than they faced 20 years ago.

With 29 Policemen killed in the last 120 years they have a point.


And how many bikers have been killed in the same period?

So wow come we dont get to use guns and tasers against the cagers, huh?

[CookMySock]

Is it only policemen then, armed with stab proof vests, pepper spray, tasers, radios, and immediate backup who are entitled to go home to their families each night ?I think the issue is more like, ordinary citizens must come under the protection of the state - standing up for oneself is VERBOTEN!!(screaming)

The cops don't want people doing the fun part of their job.

Steve

[Ixion]

The concept of self defence , like that of accident prevention, has practically ceased to have relevance in our society. Many people make many pious protestations about them, but reality is that both are deprecated by authorities , the former by making any attempt to defend yourself illegal , the latter by the police condoning any driving behaviour at all except speeding and drink driving, no matter how dangerous.

Both approached are rooted in the philosophy that the same authorities prefer to pick up the pices after ward rather than prevent the problem in the first place.

In the case of road safety, they authorities have long given up any pretence of preventing crashes, and rely instead on an approach of trying to reduce speed , and apply more padding so that the crash (recognised as inevitable ) will be surviveable. Doesn't work for bikes of course

In the case of self defence , it is simply, for practical purposes, illegal. Police consider that the resulting crimes (assault, murder) are acceptable, so long as someone (preferably the actual perpetrator, but they're not too fussy) is convicted. Note that detective is regarded in the police as more prestigious (and, I think higher paid, though I'm open to correction on that) , than a uniformed officer of similar rank. Though in fact the very existence of detectives means that the police are admitting that they have failed in their primary purpose for existence

Having detectives means that crimes have been comitted. And their existence gives police a very good reason to want crime prevention to fail.

[-df-]

If a guy comes in brandishing a pocket knife, and gets stabbed in the back trying to run from the shop owners samurai sword or something, that probably counts as offense

Nah, guy is asking for trouble...and found it. Doesn't matter what the weapon is, the intent to commit the crime against that person was there...stab the bugger if you ask me.


I like the eminant domain law in the US.

If only we had that here.

[bogan]

Nah, guy is asking for trouble...and found it. Doesn't matter what the weapon is, the intent to commit the crime against that person was there...stab the bugger if you ask me.


yes, but the intent to murder was not, if the shop owner escalates an attempted (and failed) robbery to a murder, surely this is a bad thing?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Yeah, the whole thing is a joke if you ask me.

If someone tries to attack you, as far as I'm concerned you have every right to do as much as you deem necessary to stop them...if the attacker is injured, killed, well...guess that person should not have tried to attack you in the first place!!

"You call that a knife?!?!" lol

and you'd be wrong. In law that is. Self defence is a pretty specific defence. Lots of case Lor on it too, if I recall.

[-df-]

yes, but the intent to murder was not, if the shop owner escalates an attempted (and failed) robbery to a murder, surely this is a bad thing?

At the time how do you know the persons intent? All you know is you have someone threatening you with a weapon...they have put themselves into that situation, and they will have to deal with the chance that person isn't going to let them get away with it...that could mean the innocent party has a gun within reach.

I'm sick and tired of people knowing they will get away with this sort of shit...so it just keeps going on.

If they thought they could get killed by robbing someone...bet a few less people would do it (well, after the first few died anyway)

[-df-]

and you'd be wrong. In law that is. Self defence is a pretty specific defence. Lots of case Lor on it too, if I recall.

I know by the law I'd be in the wrong...but quite frankly the law in this case is VERY wrong.

[bogan]

At the time how do you know the persons intent? All you know is you have someone threatening you with a weapon...they have put themselves into that situation, and they will have to deal with the chance that person isn't going to let them get away with it...that could mean the innocent party has a gun within reach.

I'm sick and tired of people knowing they will get away with this sort of shit...so it just keeps going on.

If they thought they could get killed by robbing someone...bet a few less people would do it (well, after the first few died anyway)

Well in my example it was clear cut, shop owner pulls out a sword and thiefy runs away, theres no intent to harm there. Though your last point is a good one, tougher penalties for criminals, dished out by the victims, some kind of balance in that.

[Smifffy]

yes, but the intent to murder was not, if the shop owner escalates an attempted (and failed) robbery to a murder, surely this is a bad thing?

There have been cases where a robber has ended up grievously wounding or killing people during a robbery, despite having no intent to kill. I have no issue with bona fide robbers ceasing to exist.

[-df-]

Well in my example it was clear cut, shop owner pulls out a sword and thiefy runs away

Yeah, fair enough in that case then, killing him would be a bit extreme I guess...maybe just cut a leg off ;)

Edit: Although if the robber pulled a knife on shop owner, and the shop owner then shot the robber...good on the shop keeper, but shooting / stabbing someone in the back as they run away is just poor sport.

[bogan]

There have been cases where a robber has ended up grievously wounding or killing people during a robbery, despite having no intent to kill. I have no issue with bona fide robbers ceasing to exist.

how many of those were caused by the robber being cornered though? Not saying people should just bend over and take it, but gotta know when to fold em.

[Smifffy]

Well in my example it was clear cut, shop owner pulls out a sword and thiefy runs away, theres no intent to harm there. Though your last point is a good one, tougher penalties for criminals, dished out by the victims, some kind of balance in that.

My advice to you if you pull out a samurai sword:

1. Know how to use it effectively
2. Be prepared to use it effectively

If you can't do both of those things you really are asking for trouble. If you really can do both of those things, then you probably don't need the sword anyway.

[CookMySock]

Having detectives means that crimes have been comitted. And their existence gives police a very good reason to want crime prevention to fail.Like any industry, they are about perpetuating it. Police morale is much higher when they have "interesting work" to do, so don't think it is going to end any time soon. Any support industry should be working towards putting themselves out of business, but that's not going to happen, as there's too much money in it, and they are having too much fun.


Steve

[MSTRS]

Someone will no doubt correct me, but my understanding of the law is that for a case of self defence to be valid, one must not wield a greater force than one's attacker is wielding against one.

This is of course a crock of shit. One defends (or not) using whatever is to hand at the time.

[duckonin]

how many of those were caused by the robber being cornered though? Not saying people should just bend over and take it, but gotta know when to fold em.

Crap fight till the end, fuck just letting some prick walk over top of your life, if what you have got is not enough get a bigger one...A lot over the years have died doing just nothing, they folded at the wrong time, then again none of us know when to fold but if we do then it is just a case of hope I suppose..

[Edbear]

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/21365

[CookMySock]

Crap fight till the end, fuck just letting some prick walk over top of your life, if what you have got is not enough get a bigger one...Well ya pays ya money and ya rolls ya dice. :shutup:

Steve

[-df-]

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/21365

Quote from link

"For example, if someone was attacking me with a knife or a gun, I would likely be justified in using deadly force to repel the attack."

I'm sure I remember cases were the police have prosecuted someone for doing just that...

What one man deems resonable, another wont.

[mashman]

Was listening to a story at chrimbo in the UK where a family, returning from their mosque, entered their house to be confronted by 3 masked men... they were then tied up and had their lives threatened... one of the kids escaped and went to get another family member who turned up with a cricket bat and chased them out of the house... at that point they headed out and caught one of the robbers... 2 ended up in jail... the crim, "Although Salem was the only intruder caught after the incident, his injuries meant he was not fit to plead after being charged with false imprisonment. He was given a two-year supervision order at a court hearing in September."... was justice served? Perhaps, although I reckon the sentence of the 2 "victims" should have been suspended...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat

I think if anyone comes on to your property uninvited and threatens to kill you, that you're well within your rights to render them imobile at any costs... equal attitude met with equal attitude equals self-defence in my eyes...

[imdying]

Having detectives means that crimes have been comitted. And their existence gives police a very good reason to want crime prevention to fail.No, they're in the business of dealing with the nasty side of human nature... in other words they're in one of the only business' where they will never ever have to work to provide themselves with more customers. There's a list of cases to be solved in this country as long as your arm, they definitely don't need more crims, if anything they need more detectives. Hell just for the quantity of detectives in this country to go from our current 'understaffed' to 'barely adequate' would require a major reduction in crime.

[Babelfish]

... If a guy comes in brandishing a pocket knife, and gets stabbed in the back trying to run from the shop owners samurai sword or something, that probably counts as offense...

Personally, I dont believe in fairness in self defense. If they have a gun and I dont, I will be Mr Submissive and hope ther're partially human. If they have a knife, and I get to my sword, they're fucked if I get close enough. Equally, if someone comes at me with any intent to do harm, I take the situation that they have the capability to kill and will do my best to obliterate them with whatever means available. There is no such thing as fairness in such a fight, and someone telling me fairness is involved in self defense nowadays can bite me.


... the police condoning any driving behaviour at all except speeding and drink driving, no matter how dangerous...

This is the biggest bug up my arse at present...but I'll save it for another thread

[Smifffy]

If you seek a fair fight then you must be prepared to lose at least half of the time. If your opponent(s) do not fight fair then your chances of losing are far greater.

If it is a matter of life and death, then it is not sport. Seek to end it as quickly as possible.

[slofox]

Any little fucker poking a knife at me I will maim with my piece of steel pipe - if I possibly can. And fuck the consequences - I got nothin' to lose at my time of life and in my state of health...go out with a bang, not a whimper. Hell yeah...

Well, I'd like to think so, anyway...

[Mudfart]

In the army, you are taught that if you are in combat, and come across an enemy combatants body, then you pump some rounds into it.
The reason being, they might not be dead and are still a threat to yours and your teammates safety and lives.
Who is to say a guy who comes to you with a knife looking for trouble, and even if you "scare" them off with a gun, they won't come back looking for more, bigger trouble?.
Infact its been my experience that burglars who get scared off, will often come back later.
Also, just for note: corrections officers who work daily with the worst offenders in society, are armed with nothing, not even for defense. Don't beleive the media, they do not wear stab proof vests, or use tasers or even pepper spray, or batons.

[duckonin]

wife and I travel a lot of miles in the Summer and we camp in a tent off the road, packed in our gear is a small aluminum kids baseball bat and that sits not far from me in the camp, at night it stays next to me, I will use it in the event of harassment of any type...

[SPman]

My advice to you if you pull out a samurai sword:

1. Know how to use it effectively
2. Be prepared to use it effectively

If you can't do both of those things you really are asking for trouble. If you really can do both of those things, then you probably don't need the sword anyway.Rule no.1 with weapons - Don't present it if you don't intend to use it! Anyone comes at us with a weapon, we make the presumption they intend to use it. If people present a weapon with intent to scare, then they've lost the plot!

[scumdog]

Nah, guy is asking for trouble...and found it. Doesn't matter what the weapon is, the intent to commit the crime against that person was there...stab the bugger if you ask me.
And then the scenario:

What actually happened: "You got my virgin daughter pregnant you dirty dog? - then die!!!" (stab-stab-stab)

What was said later: "Ah yes my good officer, indeed he vas robbing me and gooness-me, I vas just defending myself, so sad that he died".

Hence the law is the way it is....

[-df-]

And then the scenario:

What actually happened: "You got my virgin daughter pregnant you dirty dog? - then die!!!" (stab-stab-stab)

What was said later: "Ah yes my good officer, indeed he vas robbing me and gooness-me, I vas just defending myself, so sad that he died".

Hence the law is the way it is....

Hmmm, shouldn't the law allow for real self defence, and all cases investigated to ensure the facts are the facts and not assume everyone is a lair?

[Ixion]

Why are cops alowwed to defend themselves and other people aren't. How come they aren't expected just to stay still and be bashed , raped or killed without putting up a struggle?

And, following the official position on self defence, is somneone bashes up a cop, how come the COP doesn't get charged ?

[Smifffy]

Rule no.1 with weapons - Don't present it if you don't intend to use it! Anyone comes at us with a weapon, we make the presumption they intend to use it. If people present a weapon with intent to scare, then they've lost the plot!

Wholeheartedly agree

[Smifffy]

Why are cops alowwed to defend themselves and other people aren't. How come they aren't expected just to stay still and be bashed , raped or killed without putting up a struggle?

And, following the official position on self defence, is somneone bashes up a cop, how come the COP doesn't get charged ?

Dude, WTF? Everybody has the right to defend themselves, they must however use only reasonable force. As somebody posted earlier, in certain instances that includes deadly force.

After the Navtej Singh fiasco I can hardly blame any shopkeepers for arming themselves, clearly once the poo has impacted the rotary cooling device, the cops will be in no hurry to render assistance.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

[Ixion]

I totally agree. Unfortunately, the authorities do not.

[duckonin]

Why are cops alowwed to defend themselves and other people aren't. How come they aren't expected just to stay still and be bashed , raped or killed without putting up a struggle?

IXION cops 'shoot and kill' in self defence even before there is need for defence, but the public are not allowed to do just that, else we would have 'dead cunts' everywhere

[scumdog]

but the public are not allowed to do just that, else we would have 'dead cunts' everywhere

Given the mentality of some of the posters on KB it's a bloody good thing thay can't do as you suggested.

Although on the news there is a pair of losers about to face an unpleasant holiday for taking the law into their own hands....

[duckonin]

S.D. I would go along with what you say about some on KB but they still have the right to self defence;Now SD once upon a time cops were min six feet well built and could handle easerly mutts going bad, but now !!! well you can fill that in..

Those taking tha law into their own hands on the new's I cannot find that article...please enlighten me..

[Ixion]

Given the mentality of some of the posters on KB it's a bloody good thing thay can't do as you suggested.

Although on the news there is a pair of losers about to face an unpleasant holiday for taking the law into their own hands....

I'm not aware of the case you posit. However, nowadays it is certainly true that if people don't take the law into their own hands, it won't be in anyones hands. The police are not interested

Once upon a time, the only defence for anyone was their own hands (prefaerably with a sharp sword in them) . Then the state said "no no, you leave it to us, the police will defend you". But now, the police have reneged on that basic contract. So it's pretty inevitable that sooner or later people will start saying "Well, I guess it's down to me. No-one else is going to protect me or my family". The social contract that we call the Rule of Law has collapsed, and we are slowly but steadily moving back toward a world where the ONLY law is that which people take into their own hands.

[scumdog]

S.D. I would go along with what you say about some on KB but they still have the right to self defence;Now SD once upon a time cops were min six feet well built and could handle easerly mutts going bad, but now !!! well you can fill that in..

Those taking tha law into their own hands on the new's I cannot find that article...please enlighten me..

Take away all cops under 6' tall and you would have a force half the size..:shutup:

[schrodingers cat]

I was always taught - "Point a gun at someone and you are giving them permission to kill you"

Same for knives

[Rogue Rider]

The law is a confusing muck, my stance is this, if someone comes into my home/ work and threatens the safety of myself, my family, then I will use all reasonable force and means available to incapacitate the offender. Regardless of the PC patrol and the ridiculous law enforcement potential charges, all I will be thinking about is it's him or me.......
I guess you have to make certain that the situation is not premeditated, or vicious or malicious on your part. Anything that happens in your domain should be acceptible.... ie chasing them down the street and shooting them as they run away may not be as defendable....... I would like to think a jury would find in favour of self def fence over any offender who chooses freely to break the law and threaten someone in their home or place of work. In this day and age, you just don't know the result or outcome of an attack, offenders can be brutal and un emotional and very irrational, escalated by drugs. one has to do everything they can to protect themselves and there assets. Law enforcement agency seems limited to there response time, so do what you can as you can.

As for the weapons they need, well, we all deserve to be armed to be able to defend ourselves. Law enforcement agencies like police and corrections should certainly be considered for vests, and tazers etc to ensure they go home the same condition they start there shift. Both those agencies do a tremendous job, and hopefully they will get better and more successful at it. Power to the people, building safer communities working together, remember, always blow on the pie...........

[Smifffy]

It's been a long time since I got stroppy on a night out. I don't go looking for trouble, and I do believe in turning the other cheek, and taking the path of least resistance. However I absolutely refuse to be a victim. I don't carry any sort of weapon, unless you count my pocket knife, which no doubt a zealous member of the constabulary would class as a weapon. It is, after all, an extremely practical knife. I took it with me tonight to a restaurant, where it was extremely handy in opening the BYO bottles of Stella. I often use it at work, and generally the only time I'm without it is when I'm flying. I really don't think I would consider using it to defend myself, but if I did, it would not be with the blade open.

[flyingcrocodile46]

As I understand it. Anybody is allowed to use reasonable force to protect themselves but generally speaking, killing or permanently disabling people isn't considered to be reasonable. If you are deemed capable of using reason then the whole debate about what is 'reasonable' kicks in and is considered in hindsight (the calm after the storm) often with unfavorable results for the respondent who is pleading self defense.

Of course it is an entirely different matter if you are genuinely in fear of your life as you are unlikely to be able to use reason when in fight or flight mode. But that argument doesn't work when you chase the person (whom your are in fear of) down the street then kill them with an air riffle or knife.

[Babelfish]

The law is always going to seem like its stopping you thinking for yourself as they need to ensure loopholes are limited during the court appearance. How could average joe bloggs possibly understand the complexities the constabulary train to understand within their training? Such training now seems to mean they also get to defend themselves to a greater level civi's are allowed within their own homes. To me, this isn't very community focussed. I totally agree with a cop protecting himself, and I'd like to see them all with weapons and good training to use them. However, I'd also like to see a level of reality added to actions against home invaders and peoples general ability to protect themselves against the same nasties the cops have to deal with.

I take scumdogs point on the fact that I could use the law to clear the decks of some of my less savoury aquaintences. However this is where good investigation comes in. And given the last defence for a cop killing someone during a u turn was that casualties are part of the trade, unfortunately the same flippant principle isn't used for someone sneaking into my dark house and me wholloping before turning the lights on.

[Babelfish]

Thinking about this, there is some confusion. I suggest some education:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/08BqaSuEE_w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/08BqaSuEE_w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[schrodingers cat]

Police Brutality!

All coppers are scum and stuff (insert usual rant)

'As easy phrase to remember'

[scumdog]

As I understand it. Anybody is allowed to use reasonable force to protect themselves but generally speaking, killing or permanently disabling people isn't considered to be reasonable. If you are deemed capable of using reason then the whole debate about what is 'reasonable' kicks in and is considered in hindsight (the calm after the storm) often with unfavorable results for the respondent who is pleading self defense.

Of course it is an entirely different matter if you are genuinely in fear of your life as you are unlikely to be able to use reason when in fight or flight mode. But that argument doesn't work when you chase the person (whom your are in fear of) down the street then kill them with an air riffle or knife.

Top post - particularly that last paragraph, woulda blinged you but it was 'must spread rep around' time.

[Usarka]

The "fight or flight" is reaction doesn't (always) magically end as soon as the threat turns around.....

[flyingcrocodile46]

The "fight or flight" is reaction doesn't (always) magically end as soon as the threat turns around.....

No, maybe it doesn't end like a switch (that you have control over) but your sub conscious doesn't drive you to seek out weapons (that aren't within sight or arm reach) then hunt down and kill your attacker either.... that takes conscious direction/desire to maim or kill so is not regarded as self defense.

However I may well be wrong as Scumdog appears to share the view.;)

If I was a dairy owner I would have the loudest alarm available (like those ones trialed in taxis) sell goods well past their use by date, overcharge for them and profit from the unpaid labour of my child slaves.

[JimO]

my old karate instructor was set upon by a couple of bad arses one night in town he pleaded with them to leave him alone because he knew he would be in the shit with the police if he defended himself to his full abilaty, they didnt so he put both of them on the ground and fucked off before the robberstoppers turned up

[flyingcrocodile46]

That reminded me of a similar and relevant situation a buddy of mine was in some years back.
He was at a friends house in Glenfield when her son and mate who had been out riding bikes in the neighbourhood, came running into the house pursued by half a dozen street kids. The pursuers stopped at the door then went to steal the bikes on the way out of the property. My mate ran out and grabbed the bikes giving one of them a clip on the ear while doing so. They ran off behind the boundary hedge to the ROW and he followed to see them off. Which was when he saw that their were close to a dozen of them. One of them came swinging at him and the others started too move forward as well. My mate is a senior instructor at a prominent martial arts school and didn't have any trouble side stepping the first attacker and had noticed that the dick was wearing a dog choker chain. Well he grabbed a handful of that and sw/hung the dick out between him and the other would be attackers. He told them to fuck off and lifted the dick off his feet by the choker chain each time they looked like they were going to have a go at attacking him. The stand off lasted for about 5 or 6 minutes before the cops got there. One of the first cops was a young dick who on seeing the other dick's neck (which was not pretty) and now partly red shirt, immediately went to arrest my mate (who wasn't having a bar of it) trying to explain (along with other witnesses) what had happened. The young cop refused to believe his story and it was a pretty tense situation (the cops weren't going to let him go and were too scared to move on and arrest him) My mate was very aggressive verbally particularly when pointing out that they were fuckwits for allowing all the pursuers wander off in the first few minutes (bar dick who of course needed medical attention). But in all this time had only thrown one punch. He had merely used the first attacker as an effective shield. It was another 20 minutes before a police sergeant arrived and managed to process all the facts properly before they decided not to arrest or press charges against my mate. By then all bar one of the original pursuers were well and truly gone.

I posted this here as I figured it was a good example of self defense situations that aren't always as they appear to be.

PS I saw 'dick' a couple of weeks later. He was a very subdued dick with massive bruising and blistering to his neck. It really did look nasty, but I giggled at him anyway.

[Edbear]

A few years ago a mate was in conversation with a Policeman discussing home invasion and justifiable defense. My mate wanted to know what would happen if he shot the offender.

He was advised, off the record of course, to make sure the offender was coming towards him and then shoot the offender dead. After which fire a warning shot into the ceiling. A dead criminal cannot appear wounded in court influencing the jury, nor can he contradict your testimony.

My mate was told never to shoot the offender in the back.

The problem with firearms in home invasions is that the stroage of your firearm is strictly regulated, meaning that if you were abiding by the law, you probably would not have time to fetch and load it to defend yourself.

[duckonin]

...the stroage of your firearm is strictly regulated...

What you really mean is 'firearms should be in a lockable gun safe or cabinet', but is it, or was it leaning against the wall-laying on the floor, as I have just come home from hunting....

[Edbear]

What you really mean is 'firearms should be in a lockable gun safe or cabinet', but is it, or was it leaning against the wall-laying on the floor, as I have just come home from hunting....

Point taken, of course there may be a number of reasons your firearm is out of the cabinet...

[duckonin]

Sorrry ED, I see I do not have this quote thing right even yet it appears I have stolen your quote...

[Edbear]

Sorrry ED, I see I do not have this quote thing right even yet it appears I have stolen your quote...

Dasokay, mate, you'll get the hang of it.

[Smifffy]

A few years ago a mate was in conversation with a Policeman discussing home invasion and justifiable defense. My mate wanted to know what would happen if he shot the offender.

He was advised, off the record of course, to make sure the offender was coming towards him and then shoot the offender dead. After which fire a warning shot into the ceiling. A dead criminal cannot appear wounded in court influencing the jury, nor can he contradict your testimony.

My mate was told never to shoot the offender in the back.

The problem with firearms in home invasions is that the stroage of your firearm is strictly regulated, meaning that if you were abiding by the law, you probably would not have time to fetch and load it to defend yourself.

While that sounds good in theory, and is a popular urban myth, I don't think it is a very good idea. If you get caught out in that lie (forensics are pretty good these days) I think it would suggest that you were in a fit state to determine reasonable force, and that you have tampered with the evidence. I think that could end badly.